Adrian Peterson Or Chris Johnson

[EastCoastNiner]

You're wrong, and are fighting tooth and nail for a wrong answer. Who's the idiot?

 

 

Opinion =/= Answer, we've already gone over this. Who doesn't understand what?

 

 

Twist words? My exact words were "no new opinions". Straight from Fish, he just said his opinion hasn't changed. You were wrong. Game over.

 

His opinion on who the better HB is has certainly changed .You can fight tooth and nail about opinion/answer, but it's pretty black and white.

[NomarFachix]

There we go. I said WITHOUT qualifiers, such as fumbles. I said that multiple times.

Quote it, because it sure as [expletive] isn't in this thread. Clown.

[EastCoastNiner]

I know he said that, as I've mentioned it to him on AIM not too long.

 

You're really trying to nitpick right now, but I understand your point.

 

However, without trying to throw in qualifiers, I will simplify this for you, so maybe you can give a straight answer instead of one where you're always trying to use qualifiers.

 

Did he say Chris Johnson was better at the time? Did he recently say Adrian Peterson is better? Are Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson the same person?

 

Now, what you're going to say is something along the lines of, "Well, he thought Adrian Peterson was better without fumbling" or something along those lines, but he said Johnson was better, and has now changed his opinion.

 

I'm not trying to argue with this, but you're nitpicking, and not nitpicking well.

 

There you go. Now move along.

 

I've never denied he would take Johnson with Peterson's fumbling problems. All I have maintained is that he did in fact say Chris Johnson was the better HB at the time, the player he picked. NOW, he has chosen Peterson. Two different players, two different answers.

 

This is a dumb argument to have anyways, yet you always want to stir up the pot. This was a simple thread about a comparison of the two players, the only thread with both of their names in the title on this site. It's not that complicated.

Edited September 26, 2011 by EastCoastNiner

[NomarFachix]

His opinion on who the better HB is has certainly changed .You can fight tooth and nail about opinion/answer, but it's pretty black and white.

HE JUST [expletive]ING TOLD YOU HIMSELF THAT HIS OPINION HASN'T CHANGED! Are you serious right now? How the [expletive] did you get into a college? How did they give you a high school diploma? I cannot fathom that people let you get this far in life being so [expletive]ing stupid and bullheaded. Unbelievable.

 

Go lick a window.

[EastCoastNiner]

HE JUST [expletive]ING TOLD YOU HIMSELF THAT HIS OPINION HASN'T CHANGED! Are you serious right now? How the [expletive] did you get into a college? How did they give you a high school diploma? I cannot fathom that people let you get this far in life being so [expletive]ing stupid and bullheaded. Unbelievable.

 

Go lick a window.

 

DID HE SAY JOHNSON WAS BETTER THAN? YES

 

DID HE JUST SAY PETERSON WAS BETTER NOW? YES

 

HAS HIS OPINION CHANGED? YES, OBVIOUSLY.

 

 

Does he still believe that if Peterson had fumbling problems that Johnson would be better? Yes, most likely from what he's written. You're trying to argue over the semantics of the word "opinion", yet you're [expletive]ing wrong as usual. You are seriously [expletive]ing retarded. His opinion obviously [expletive]ing changed. He can say it didn't, but last time I checked, Johnson plays for the Titans and Peterson plays for the Vikings. They're not the same person.

[NomarFachix]

There you go. Now move along.

Wait, so your argument is that today, over a year after this thread was created, you posted some bullshit about qualifiers? He posted and reaffirmed his opinion before you even made that post. That post is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. Good Lord.

 

I've never denied he would take Johnson with Peterson's fumbling problems. All I have maintained is that he did in fact say Chris Johnson was the better HB at the time, the player he picked. NOW, he has chosen Peterson. Two different players, two different answers.

His opinion has not changed since this thread started. Peterson, minus fumbles, is better. That is his stance today, it was his stance over a year ago. His. Opinion. Has. Not. Changed. The very first thing that was said.

 

This is a dumb argument to have anyways, yet you always want to stir up the pot. This was a simple thread about a comparison of the two players, the only thread with both of their names in the title on this site. It's not that complicated.

No, what I wanted to do was make a poke at you for bumping a thread where you were "right", and bumping it multiple times on multiple days, because it is the only place lately where you don't look like a [expletive]ing clown. However, in the process, you continued to make yourself look like a clown. You decided that you'd like to argue semantics so that you could save some face.

 

It hasn't been successful.

[EastCoastNiner]

Give me dash, no, a few fumbles would not knock me right off a running back, 16 in the last 2 years would. That's a fumble every other game, which is absolutley pathetic. The running backs #1 prioirty is to protect the ball, Peterson fails at doing that. When teams run they are supposed to feel safe in the fact that they will not turn the ball over that play. If he fixes that problem I'd like him more, but right now give me CJ.

 

 

Peterson suceeds in protecting the ball now, and now he is better.

 

Do I need to spell it out for you?

[EastCoastNiner]

Wait, so your argument is that today, over a year after this thread was created, you posted some bullshit about qualifiers? He posted and reaffirmed his opinion before you even made that post. That post is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing. Good Lord.

 

His opinion has not changed since this thread started. Peterson, minus fumbles, is better. That is his stance today, it was his stance over a year ago. His. Opinion. Has. Not. Changed. The very first thing that was said.

 

No, what I wanted to do was make a poke at you for bumping a thread where you were "right", and bumping it multiple times on multiple days, because it is the only place lately where you don't look like a [expletive]ing clown. However, in the process, you continued to make yourself look like a clown. You decided that you'd like to argue semantics so that you could save some face.

 

It hasn't been successful.

 

Good thing I that's not what I'm arguing. I never denied his stance on that. As I stated multiple time (Do I need to quote shit again for you?) that he said C.J. was the better back then, and now Peterson is. His opinion on who the better player is has changed.

 

Elementary 101.

[NomarFachix]

DID HE SAY JOHNSON WAS BETTER THAN? YES

Better than who? Simple English, sir.

 

DID HE SAY JOHNSON WAS BETTER THAN? YES

 

DID HE JUST SAY PETERSON WAS BETTER NOW? YES

 

HAS HIS OPINION CHANGED? YES, OBVIOUSLY.

No, he didn't. He said he'd take Johnson, because Peterson fumbled too much. His opinion, as he stated then and reaffirmed not too long ago, is that he felt Peterson was the better runner if he managed his fumbles.

 

Peterson was better then, if he managed his fumbles.

Peterson is better now, if he manages his fumbles.

 

Opinion changed? No, you're just trying to make it seem that way because you look foolish.

 

Does he still believe that if Peterson had fumbling problems that Johnson would be better? Yes, most likely from what he's written. You're trying to argue over the semantics of the word "opinion", yet you're [expletive]ing wrong as usual. You are seriously [expletive]ing retarded. His opinion obviously [expletive]ing changed. He can say it didn't, but last time I checked, Johnson plays for the Titans and Peterson plays for the Vikings. They're not the same person.

I am not arguing over opinion. He gave his opinion. Peterson is better if he doesn't fumble. That opinion has not changed since the creation of this thread.

 

He can say his opinion didn't change, I can say his opinion didn't change, Real Deal can say his opinion didn't change, PFT can say his opinion didn't change, and Jesus Christ can say his opinion didn't change. But EastCoastNiner is the ruler of Fish's opinion, and he says it has.

[EastCoastNiner]

Better than who? Simple English, sir.

 

 

No, he didn't. He said he'd take Johnson, because Peterson fumbled too much. His opinion, as he stated then and reaffirmed not too long ago, is that he felt Peterson was the better runner if he managed his fumbles.

 

Peterson was better then, if he managed his fumbles.

Peterson is better now, if he manages his fumbles.

 

Opinion changed? No, you're just trying to make it seem that way because you look foolish.

 

 

I am not arguing over opinion. He gave his opinion. Peterson is better if he doesn't fumble. That opinion has not changed since the creation of this thread.

 

He can say his opinion didn't change, I can say his opinion didn't change, Real Deal can say his opinion didn't change, PFT can say his opinion didn't change, and Jesus Christ can say his opinion didn't change. But EastCoastNiner is the ruler of Fish's opinion, and he says it has.

 

There you go again. I stated towards the beginning of this argument that WITHOUT qualifiers, such as fumbled, his opinion has changed. You're arguing something I'm not even arguing about. I never denied his stance.

 

I'm going to make this very simple for you. Use just yes and no for these questions, like I asked earlier.

 

His opinion on who the better HB did change because it's written out for you.

 

 

1. Was his final opinion/answer early in the thread that Johnson was the better HB?

 

2. Did he say in his post the other day that Peterson is now better?

 

3. Are Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson the same person?

Edited September 26, 2011 by EastCoastNiner

[NomarFachix]

Good thing I that's not what I'm arguing.

 

Elementary 101.

Those two lines make me laugh. You are too funny.

[EastCoastNiner]

Those two lines make me laugh. You are too funny.

 

That's good. Why can't you answer the question?

 

1. I have never denied his stance that Johnson was/is the better HB as long as Peterson has fumbling problems.

 

2. His final answer changed from the beginning of the thread until now on which back is better. You keep throwing "ifs" in there. I know what he stated.

 

 

I honestly feel bad for Phightins that he has to go to a game with you........I think I would go absolutely crazy, but if you're going to the Giants game in Foxboro this year, let me know, so I can teach you something about football. :glasses: .

[NomarFachix]

I'm going to make this very simple for you. Use just yes and no for these questions, like I asked earlier.

 

Answer mine, first:

 

1. Did he say Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he didn't fumble a lot?

 

2. Does he still maintain that Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he doesn't fumble a lot?

 

The answer to both is yes. You bumped up the thread, where there was no active conversation and no difference in opinions than were presented over a year ago, because you try, on a regular basis, to make yourself look good. Your efforts are futile. My initial comment in the thread was spot on, and your spin cycle washing machine can't change that.

[NomarFachix]

1. I have never denied his stance that Johnson was/is the better HB as long as Peterson has fumbling problems.

Good, so what the [expletive] are you arguing about? Dolt.

 

I honestly feel bad for Phightins that he has to go to a game with you

I know, you have no social skills. You'd be fidgeting and anxious the entire time.

 

but if you're going to the Giants game in Foxboro this year, let me know, so I can teach you something about football. :glasses: .

Like how to predict a 12-4 record, a full 6 games off the correct mark? I'll pass.

[EastCoastNiner]

Answer mine, first:

 

1. Did he say Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he didn't fumble a lot?

 

2. Does he still maintain that Adrian Peterson is better than Chris Johnson if he doesn't fumble a lot?

 

The answer to both is yes. You bumped up the thread, where there was no active conversation and no difference in opinions than were presented over a year ago, because you try, on a regular basis, to make yourself look good. Your efforts are futile. My initial comment in the thread was spot on, and your spin cycle washing machine can't change that.

 

1. Yes

 

2. Yes

 

 

I haven't denied his stance on that at all. However, you keep using the "if he doesn't fumble" line (that Fish did say). However, those weren't his FINAL answers to each question.

 

You know it, I know it.

[EastCoastNiner]

Thanks for IM'ing me a minute ago.

[NomarFachix]

However, those weren't his FINAL answers to each question.

Grand. I never said his final answer didn't change. Just that his opinion on the two backs didn't.

 

And it didn't.

 

You know it, I know it.

[EastCoastNiner]

Good, so what the [expletive] are you arguing about? Dolt.

 

 

I know, you have no social skills. You'd be fidgeting and anxious the entire time.

 

 

Like how to predict a 12-4 record, a full 6 games off the correct mark? I'll pass.

 

I'm arguing about who he said the better HB is, not who he said the better HB is minus this and minus that. Dolt.

[EastCoastNiner]

Grand. I never said his final answer didn't change. Just that his opinion on the two backs didn't.

 

And it didn't.

 

You know it, I know it.

 

On which HB is better? It certainly did. I love how you always try and twist words for your benefit.

[NomarFachix]

On which HB is better? It certainly did. I love how you always try and twist words for your benefit.

His opinion of the two running backs didn't change a lick. He was just in here telling you that his opinion on the two backs didn't change a lick. Why are you still at it?

[EastCoastNiner]

His opinion of the two running backs didn't change a lick. He was just in here telling you that his opinion on the two backs didn't change a lick. Why are you still at it?

 

Stop being a moron. It's not worth arguing with you. You avoided my questions because you would be proven wrong as usual.

 

It's pretty simple. He said C.J. was better then, and now Peterson is better now. His opinion on who the better HB is, like this thread is supposed to be about, has changed. Not, who the better HB is factoring in fumbles, which is already part of an HB's skillset or lack thereof.

[NomarFachix]

Why are you dictating what his opinion is, when he was just here telling you what his opinion was? An opinion that hasn't changed?

 

Actually, this conversation should have ended there. When Fish told you that you were wrong. Because, well, you're wrong. I thought maybe presenting solid fact in text form would sway you into admitting, for once, that you were wrong.. but alas, wasted keystrokes.

 

and now Peterson is better now

lol

[EastCoastNiner]

Why are you dictating what his opinion is, when he was just here telling you what his opinion was? An opinion that hasn't changed?

 

Actually, this conversation should have ended there. When Fish told you that you were wrong. Because, well, you're wrong. I thought maybe presenting solid fact in text form would sway you into admitting, for once, that you were wrong.. but alas, wasted keystrokes.

 

 

lol

 

I can read what he wrote. He said Johnson was better then, and Peterson is now as his final answers. Those "opinions" on who who thought was better with everything factored in was in the last line of both of those posts.

 

It's cute that you like to try and find me on AIM though. .

Edited September 26, 2011 by EastCoastNiner

[NomarFachix]

I can read what he wrote.

That you were wrong? Nice. Seems like the thread has run its course. See ya!